Port user typology and representations of port choice behavior: A Q-methodological study
- 89 Downloads
Research has identified many criteria that contribute to selecting a sea port, yet not much is known about how port users look at these criteria and how they argue on the factors that contribute to their port choice behavior. This study uses the Q methodology to explore the typology of port choice in conjunction with the port users’ own representations of their choice behavior. We employ an in-depth methodology that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative methods for an investigation of port choice behavior among port users particularly in South Korea. The analysis revealed four main types: Service- and corporation-oriented; Location and cost saver; On-time and task achiever; and Capacity and infrastructure friendly type. The results provide some implications and guidance for formulating policies and effective strategies for improving the competitiveness of port authorities and port operators.
Keywordsport users Q methodology typology port choice behavior
The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the editor-in-chief of this journal for their useful and constructive comments.
- Ahn, W., Lim, S. and Ahn, S. (2006) A study on analyzing bottlenecks of logistics in Incheon Port: Focused on container freight. Korean Research of Logistics 14 (2): 65–90.Google Scholar
- Baek, I. and Ha, C. (2006) A study on deciding a container feeder port development priority. Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education 18 (2): 172–182.Google Scholar
- Brown, S.R. (1980) Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Cullinane, K., Song, D. and Gray, R. (2002) A stochastic frontier model of the efficiency of major container terminals in Asia: Assessing the influence of administrative and ownership structures. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 36 (8): 743–762.Google Scholar
- Davis, H.C. (1983) Regional port impact studies: A critique and suggested methodology. Transportation Journal 23 (2): 61–71.Google Scholar
- Ducruet, C., Lee, S. and Roussin, S. (2009) Local strength, global weakness: A maritime network perspective on South Korea as Northeast Asia’s logistics hub. International Journal of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 1 (1): 32–50.Google Scholar
- Kim, H. (2008) Q Methodology: Scientific Philosophy, Theory, Analysis and Application. Seoul: Communication Books.Google Scholar
- Song, D. (2009) Global maritime transport and logistics: Recent developments and implications for Asian container ports. International Journal of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 1 (2): 27–37.Google Scholar
- Tongzon, J. and Heng, W. (2005) Port privatization, efficiency and competitiveness: Some empirical evidence from container ports. Transportation Research Part A 39 (5): 405–424.Google Scholar
- Walter, A. (1975) Marginal cost pricing in ports. The Logistics and Transportation Review 11 (4): 297–308.Google Scholar